DOCSLIB.ORG

To View the AVEK 2020 UWMP Public Draft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
To View the AVEK 2020 UWMP Public Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Draft MAY 2021 ANTELOPE VALLEY-EAST KERN WATER AGENCY ANTELOPE VALLEY‐ EAST KERN WATER AGENCY 2020 Urban Water Management Plan MAY 25, 2021 Prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document was prepared in partnership between WSC and AVEK. WSC thanks the following people for their contributions: Dwayne Chisam, General Manager Matt Knudson, Assistant General Manager Tom Barnes, Water Resources Manager AVEK Board of Directors Director Keith Dyas, Division 2, President Director Frank S. Donato, Division 3, Vice President Director Shelley Sorsabal, Division 1 Director George M. Lane, Division 4 Director Robert A. Parris, Division 5 Director Audrey T. Miller, Division 6 Director Gary Van Dam, Division 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... v Acronyms & Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. vi Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Urban Water Management Plan Purpose and Overview ........................................................ 1-3 UWMP Organization ....................................................................................................................... 1-4 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts ............................................................................................. 1-4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions ...... 1-5 2. Plan Preparation ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Plan Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 2-2 Basis for Preparing a Plan .............................................................................................................. 2-2 Coordination and Outreach ............................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3.1 Wholesale and Retail Coordination ..................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.2 Coordination with Other Agencies and the Community .................................................... 2-3 3. System Description ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 General Description ......................................................................................................................... 3-2 Service Area Climate ....................................................................................................................... 3-4 Service Area Population and Demographics ............................................................................... 3-4 4. Water Use Characterization ................................................................................................................. 4-1 Past and Current Water Use .......................................................................................................... 4-2 Projected Water Use ....................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.1 Population Growth................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.2 Per Capita Demand Rebound ............................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.3 Passive and Active Conservation .......................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.4 Climate Change ....................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.5 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.2.6 Recycled Water .................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.2.7 Distribution System Water Losses ...................................................................................... 4-10 4.2.8 AVEK Demand Projections ................................................................................................... 4-11 4.2.9 Characteristic Five-Year Water Use ................................................................................. 4-11 Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency 2020 Urban Water Management Plan May 2021 i DRAFT 5. SBX7-7 Baseline, Targets and 2020 Compliance ............................................................................. 5-1 6. Water Supply Characterization ........................................................................................................... 6-1 State Water Project ......................................................................................................................... 6-3 6.1.1 SWP Water Supply Estimates ............................................................................................... 6-4 6.1.2 Groundwater Banking............................................................................................................. 6-6 6.1.3 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 6-8 Water Exchanges and Transfers ................................................................................................... 6-9 Groundwater .................................................................................................................................. 6-11 6.3.1 Groundwater Accounting ..................................................................................................... 6-14 6.3.2 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 6-14 Wastewater and Recycled Water ............................................................................................. 6-14 6.4.1 Recycled Water Coordination ........................................................................................... 6-14 6.4.2 Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal .......................................................... 6-15 Surface Water ............................................................................................................................... 6-16 Stormwater ..................................................................................................................................... 6-16 Desalinated Water Opportunities .............................................................................................. 6-16 Future Water Projects ................................................................................................................... 6-16 6.8.1 New Supplemental Water Supply (per LACWD MOU) ............................................... 6-16 Summary of Projected Water Supplies ..................................................................................... 6-17 6.9.1 Climate Change Effects ....................................................................................................... 6-18 Energy Intensity ............................................................................................................................ 6-18 7. Water Supply Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment ................................................................... 7-1 Water Supply Reliability Assessment ........................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.1 Water Supply Reliability – Normal Year ........................................................................... 7-3 7.1.2 Water Supply Reliability – Single Dry Year ...................................................................... 7-4 7.1.3 Water Supply Reliability – Five Consecutive Dry Years .................................................. 7-5 2021–2025 Drought Risk Assessment ........................................................................................... 7-7 8. Water Shortage Contingency Plan ...................................................................................................... 8-1 9. Demand Management Measures .......................................................................................................... 9-1 Demand Management Measures for Wholesale Suppliers ...................................................... 9-2 Public Education and Outreach ...................................................................................................... 9-2 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing ....................................................... 9-2 Asset Management ..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • GRA 9 – South Delta
    2-900 .! 2-905 .! 2-950 .! 2-952 2-908 .! .! 2-910 .! 2-960 .! 2-915 .! 2-963 .! 2-964 2-965 .! .! 2-917 .! 2-970 2-920 ! .! . 2-922 .! 2-924 .! 2-974 .! San Joaquin County 2-980 2-929 .! .! 2-927 .! .! 2-925 2-932 2-940 Contra Costa .! .! County .! 2-930 2-935 .! Alameda 2-934 County ! . Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Area Map Office of Spill Prevention and Response I Data Source: O SPR NAD_1983_C alifornia_Teale_Albers ACP2 - GRA9 Requestor: ACP Coordinator Author: J. Muskat Date Created: 5/2 Environmental Sensitive Sites Section 9849 – GRA 9 South Delta Table of Contents GRA 9 Map ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2 Site Index/Response Action ...................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Response Resources for GRA 9......................................................................... 4 9849.1 Environmentally Sensitive Sites 2-900-A Old River Mouth at San Joaquin River....................................................... 1 2-905-A Franks Tract Complex................................................................................... 4 2-908-A Sand Mound Slough ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RD799 Five Year Plan
    Reclamation District 799 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan May 2012 Prepared by 2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 300 Folsom, CA 95630 This page intentionally left blank. RD 799 Five Year Plan Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Brief History of Hotchkiss Tract .......................................................................................... 3 2.1 Location .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Geomorphic Evolution ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Historical Flood Events ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.3.1 Existing level of protection ........................................................................................................... 6 3.0 Identification of Need for Improvements to Alleviate or Minimize Existing Hazards ........................................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Local Assets ....................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Non-local Assets and Public Benefit ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop Report—Earthquakes and High Water As Levee Hazards in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    Workshop report—Earthquakes and High Water as Levee Hazards in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Delta Independent Science Board September 30, 2016 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Workshop ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Structure ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Participants and affiliations ........................................................................................................ 2 Highlights .................................................................................................................................... 3 Earthquakes ............................................................................................................................. 3 High water ............................................................................................................................... 4 Perspectives....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
    [Show full text]
  • (Estimated Time 5 Minutes) IAN ROBERTSON
    Tuesday, June 6, 2017, 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 1.A. BOARD ROLL CALL 1.B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. STAFF RECOGNITION (Estimated Time 5 Minutes) 2.A. IAN ROBERTSON - WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATOR 2.B. DAVID GARCIA - WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATOR 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MAY 23, 2017 PLANNING AND PROGRAMS - FINANCE/CIP MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE IRONHOUSE SANITARY DISTRICT Documents: PLANNING AND PROGRAMS MINUTES 5.23.2017.PDF 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS At this time, the public may address the Board on subjects not on the agenda. Comments may not exceed three (3) minutes in length. While State Law prohibits Board action or discussion on any item not on the agenda, members of the Board may briefly respond to statements or questions from members of the public, provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Board at a subsequent meeting, or take action to direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Members of the public are asked to submit a speaker card for public comment in advance of the Chair calling for public comments. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be adopted in one single motion with no separate discussion of the items. Directors or members of the public can request that specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar. When item(s) are removed, the Board will adopt the remaining Consent Calendar items in one single motion. After approval of the Consent Calendar, the Board will take action on pulled items as Business Before the Board.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science
    UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Title Implications for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions and Economics of a Changing Agricultural Mosaic in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/99z2z7hb Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 15(3) ISSN 1546-2366 Authors Deverel, Steven Jacobs, Paul Lucero, Christina et al. Publication Date 2017 DOI 10.15447/sfews.2017v15iss3art2 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California SEPTEMBER 2017 RESEARCH Implications for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions and Economics of a Changing Agricultural Mosaic in the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta Steven Deverel1, Paul Jacobs2, Christina Lucero1, Sabina Dore1, and T. Rodd Kelsey3 profit changes relative to the status quo. We spatially Volume 15, Issue 3 | Article 2 https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2017v15iss3art2 assigned areas for rice and wetlands, and then allowed the Delta Agricultural Production (DAP) * Corresponding author: [email protected] model to optimize the allocation of other crops to 1 HydroFocus, Inc. maximize profit. The scenario that included wetlands 2827 Spafford Street, Davis, CA 95618 USA decreased profits 79% relative to the status quo but 2 University of California, Davis -1 One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 USA reduced GHG emissions by 43,000 t CO2-e yr (57% 3 The Nature Conservancy reduction). When mixtures of rice and wetlands were 555 Capitol Mall Suite 1290, Sacramento, CA 95814 USA introduced, farm profits decreased 16%, and the GHG -1 emission reduction was 33,000 t CO2-e yr (44% reduction).
    [Show full text]
  • Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA
    UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Title Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8(2) ISSN 1546-2366 Authors Deverel, Steven J Leighton, David A Publication Date 2010 DOI https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2010v8iss2art1 Supplemental Material https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw#supplemental License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California august 2010 Historic, Recent, and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USA Steven J. Deverel1 and David A. Leighton Hydrofocus, Inc., 2827 Spafford Street, Davis, CA 95618 AbStRACt will range from a few cm to over 1.3 m (4.3 ft). The largest elevation declines will occur in the central To estimate and understand recent subsidence, we col- Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. From 2007 to 2050, lected elevation and soils data on Bacon and Sherman the most probable estimated increase in volume below islands in 2006 at locations of previous elevation sea level is 346,956,000 million m3 (281,300 ac-ft). measurements. Measured subsidence rates on Sherman Consequences of this continuing subsidence include Island from 1988 to 2006 averaged 1.23 cm year-1 increased drainage loads of water quality constitu- (0.5 in yr-1) and ranged from 0.7 to 1.7 cm year-1 (0.3 ents of concern, seepage onto islands, and decreased to 0.7 in yr-1). Subsidence rates on Bacon Island from arability.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Report
    State of Call ornia The Resources Agency DEPART ET OF ATER RESOURCES Central Dis rict INTERAGENCY DELTA HEALTH ASPECTS MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT REPORT ecember 1986 Gordon K. Van Vleck George Deu mejian David N. Kennedy Secretary lor Re ourc Governor Dlfec or THE RESOLRCES AGE CY 5TATE OF CAL OANIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOLRCES Copies of this report at $4.00 each may be ordered from: State of california Department: of ater R sources P. O. Box 942836 sacramento CA 94236-0001 payable to of ater Resource • California residents add al tax. State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Central District INTERAGENCY DELTA HEALTH ASPECTS MONITORING PROGRAM PROJECT REPORT December 1986 Gordon K. Van Vleck George Deukmejian David N. Kennedy Secretary for Resources Governor Director THE RESOURCES AGENCY STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Portions of this report were prepared with the assistance of Marvin Jung and Associates Contract B-55923 Technical assistance provided in the amount of $5,100 r- , FOREWORD In 1982, the Department of Water Resources appointed a panel of scientists to evaluate the human health aspects of using Delta water supplies. The panel concluded that there was insufficient data on many important factors and contaminant sources that could affect water quality. Some of these factors include tidal action and riverflows, agricultural drainages, pesticide use, waste water discharges, and water movement within the Delta. The panel recommended a program to develop a comprehensive analytical model that would incorporate and analyze these factors. In April 1983, the Interagency Delta Health Aspects Monitoring Program was initiated in response to the panel's recommendation.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
    Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Recoat Mokelumne Aqueducts Phase 8 - Slough Crossings Project East Bay Municipal Utility District May 2010 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Recoat Mokelumne Aqueducts Phase 8 - Slough Crossings Project East Bay Municipal Utility District May 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Recoat Mokelumne Aqueducts Phase 8 - Slough Crossings Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations ..............................................................................................A-1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. E-1 1. Introduction Purpose/Legal Authority .............................................................................................1-1 Scope and Content .......................................................................................................1-2 Federal Review Process ..............................................................................................1-2 Public Review Process.................................................................................................1-2 2. Project Description Project Background .....................................................................................................2-1 Proposed Sequencing of Work.....................................................................................2-2 Description of Sites......................................................................................................2-3
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History
    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
    [Show full text]